Many communication networks, such as the Internet, rely on packet switching technologies (e.g., X.25, frame relay, asynchronous transfer mode, etc.) to transport variable or uniform blocks (usually termed packets or cells) of data between nodes. The term packet will be used herein to collectively refer to any such block of information. Such networks generally perform two major functions: routing and congestion control. The object of routing is to deliver, correctly and sometimes in sequence, the packets from a source to a destination. The object of congestion control is to maintain the number of packets within the network (or a region or sub-network thereof) below a level at which queuing delays become excessive. Due to finite resources, packets may be dropped rather than queued.
In essence, a packet switched network is a network of queues communicatively coupled together by communication links (which may be made up of various physical media). At each network node (e.g., a switch or router), there exist one or more queues of packets for each outgoing link. If the rate at which packets arrive and queue up exceeds the rate at which packets are transmitted, queue size grows without bound and the delay experienced by a packet tends towards infinity. In such situations, the network is said to be congested.
In an ideal case, network throughput, and hence network use, should increase to an offered load up to the physical capacity of the network and remain at capacity if the load is further increased. This ideal case, however, requires that all nodes somehow know the timing and rate of packets that will be presented to the network with no overload and no delay in acquiring this information; a situation which is not possible. If no congestion control is exercised, as the load increases, use increases for a while. Then, as the queue lengths at various nodes begin to grow, throughput actually drops. This is due to the fact that the queues are constrained to a finite length by the physical size of the memories in which they exist. When a node's memory (i.e., its queues) is full, it must drop (i.e., discard) additional incoming packets. Thus, the source is forced to retransmit these packets in addition to any new packets it might have. This only serves to worsen the situation. As more and more packets are retransmitted, the load on the network grows and more and more nodes become saturated. Eventually, even a successfully delivered packet may be retransmitted because it takes so long to get to its destination (whereupon it may be acknowledged by the destination node) that the source actually assumes that the packet was lost and tries to retransmit it. Under such circumstances, the effective capacity of the network can be virtually zero.
Contrary to what one might believe, the solution to this problem is not simply to allow the queue lengths to grow indefinitely. Indeed, it has been shown that even where queue lengths are allowed to be infinite, congestion can occur. See, e.g., John Nagle, “On Packet Switches with Infinite Storage”, Network Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 970 (1985). One reason that this is true is that packets are often coded with an upper bound on their life, thus causing expired packets to be dropped and retransmitted, adding to the already overwhelming volume of traffic within the network.
Very early in the development of the modem Internet, it was discovered that some control over the manner in which packets were injected into the network by the source was needed to help with the problem of dropped packets. Originally, the well-known transmission control protocol (TCP) allowed a source to inject multiple packets into a network, up to a limit corresponding to a window or buffer size advertised by the receiver. Although such a scheme may work where the source and the receiver are connected to the same local area network, it was soon found that where routers having finite buffer sizes are disposed between the source and the receiver, problems arise as these routers soon run out of space to hold the incoming packets. To combat this problem Jacobson and Karels developed a “slow start” procedure wherein the source limits the rate at which it injects new packets into the network according to the rate at which acknowledgements of successful receptions are returned by the receiver. Van Jacobson and Michael J. Karels, “Congestion Avoidance and Control”, Proceedings of SIGCOMM '88 (Stanford, Calif., August 1988), ACM.
Under the slow start procedure, a so-called congestion window is added to the source's TCP implementation. When a connection is established with a resource on another network, this congestion window is initialized to one segment (e.g., the segment or packet size advertised by the resource or a default packet size). Each time an acknowledgement is received, the congestion window is incremented and the source is allowed to inject a number of packets up to the minimum of the current congestion window size or the receiver's advertised window. Over time, the source's congestion window will grow exponentially until at some point the capacity of the intervening network is reached and some intermediate router begins dropping packets. This is an indication to the source that its congestion window has gotten too large. See, e.g., W. Richard Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 1: The Protocols (1994) and Gary W. Wright and W. Richard Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 2: The Implementation (1995).
At this point, and where the slow start process is run in concert with a conventional congestion avoidance procedure, the source resets its congestion window to one, and the process repeats up to the point at which the congestion window becomes half the size at which packet loss occurred previously. After this point, the congestion avoidance process takes over and begins incrementing the congestion window in a linear fashion (rather than in an exponential fashion as under the slow start process) in response to receiver acknowledgements.
Even with the slow-start process, however, congestion occurs within packet switched networks. Some of the present applicants have proposed certain congestion control methods in a number of co-pending patent applications. For example, in co-pending application Ser. No. 09/846,452, entitled “METHOD FOR ACCELERATING TCP FLOWS IN COMMUNICATION NETWORKS WITH DYNAMIC CONTROL”, filed Apr. 30, 2001, and assigned to the assignee of the present application, a scheme for controlling congestion wherein predictions of congestion conditions for a traffic stream in a communication network are applied to modify an initial congestion window size for the traffic stream; and dynamic bandwidth control is thereafter applied to the traffic stream was proposed. In one embodiment (which itself was based on a congestion control technique described in co-pending application Ser. No. 09/539,434, entitled “METHOD FOR REDUCING PACKET LOSS AND INCREASING INTERNET FLOW BY FEEDBACK CONTROL,” filed Mar. 30, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,674,717,and assigned to the assignee of the present application) this dynamic bandwidth control included modulating inter-packet bandwidths of the traffic stream according to a capacity of a bottleneck in a communication path through which the traffic stream passes in the communication network. The predictions of congestion conditions may be based on monitoring packet losses within the communication network. The monitoring may be performed on at least one of a traffic stream-by traffic stream basis, a connection-by-connection basis, a link-by-link basis, or a destination-by-destination basis. Further, the monitoring may performed for a period between 0 and 100 seconds.
In some cases, the control techniques discussed in these co-pending applications, as well as other congestion control techniques developed by the present applicants, proved even better performance when the type of congestion being experienced can be determined. It is the procedures for making such determinations that are the subject of this application.